Explore

The Criminal Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and declared Taringa's stay of proceedings, a site that hosts content uploaded by its users. María Kodama, heir to Jorge Luis Borges, brought a lawsuit against Taringa based on her rights to the work authored by her husband. The Criminal Court decided on the basis of "Rodríguez", applying the same standard to a service different from a search engine. According to the Criminal Court, Google and Taringa are both "intermediaries whose main objective is to serve as a link" and reaffirmed that "there is not an obligation to verify the content ex ante but afterwards in case it is reported". The Court stated that "search engines" (or platforms like Taringa) are responsible for third-party content when they have "actual knowledge" of the unlawfulness of such content. Since...

This landmark case addressed the liability of search engines for linking in search results to third-party content that violates fundamental rights or infringes copyright. Because Argentina had no intermediary liability legislation at the time, the Supreme Court reviewed domestic and international law, and reasoned from tort principles and constitutional or human rights law. Its decision was largely favorable to search engines. The Court (1) repudiated a strict liability standard on the basis of the threat it would pose to free expression rights; (2) held that search engines could not be liable for unlawful content upon notification unless a public authority had adjudicated the material as unlawful, with exceptions for cases of "gross and manifest harm"; (3) rejected any filtering obligation to prevent infringing links...

The new Argentine Civil and Commercial Code does not have any specific legislation regarding Internet Service Providers’ (ISP) liability. Article 1.109 of the revoked Argentine Civil Code is still used as a reference for the negligence standard of liability based on actual knowledge under “Rodriguez”. The said article does not have an exact substitute. However, the negligence standard can be found in Article 1721 and Article 1724. Moreover, Article 53 has been applied in decisions dealing with search engines’ liability with respect to thumbnail linking. Article 53. Right of publicity. In order to record or reproduce a person’s image or voice, in any way, such person’s consent is necessary, except in the following cases: a) where the person participates in public acts; b) where there is a higher scientific, cultural or...

The District Court No. 64 in Buenos Aires issued an injunction to block access to the Pirate Bay website in a case initiated by the Argentine Chamber of Phonographic Producers. This is a so called "autosatisfactive" injunction that does not need any further determination of the merits of the case. Therefore, the decision is final unless appealed. Later, the Argentine National Communications Commission (NCC) ordered Internet Service Providers to implement the district's court injunction and block access to The Pirate Bay IP numbers and DSN domains in the country within five days. See also CIS bolg post

This case is one among numerous civil lawsuits brought against the search engines Google and Yahoo! by different ‘celebrities’ and well‐known public figures for violation of their honor and privacy (see below Rodriguez and Da Cuhna for more background information). In this case, the court found search engines strictly liable under Article 1113 of the Civil Code, which imposes liability, regardless of knowledge or intention, to those performing risky acts (e.g. indexing third party content creating wider audiences for illegitimate content) or serving as the “guardians” of the thing that generates the damage (e.g. the search engine’s software).

Confirmed the previous decision regarding a criminal lawsuit against 10 YouTube users accused of publishing a movie on the platform and infringing copyright law, in particular Article 71 of Law 11.723. The final decision concluded that contents that are uploaded on YouTube are not known in advance by the site administrators who, therefore, do not act as "guarantors" of the content and/or neccessarily partecipate in possible illegal actions. According to the ruling, YouTube is an intermediary enjoing a special contition due to its essential character of being a platform to share cultural information globally. The Court concluded that the inherent potential risks of this activity must be balanced with the benefits in terms of the dissemination of cultural content. It also noted that users uploading videos do not infringe...